To the Editor of the '"Normi-Cmixa Dany News"
Sm—So long as_ there. exists practically no established " inter. ational code on the conduct of aerial warfare, criteria of the rules of International Law governing must be sought somewhere else, Whilst the letter and spirit of the Hague Draft Convention may serve good reference, just as the unratl. fled and repudiated Declaration of London of 1900 still serves as such for maritime warfare, we must look Into Teading cases, the opinions of publicists supported by authorities, Giscussions and resolutions at success sive meetings of the Institute of International Law (for instance, the resolution regarding aerial bombing. at the Stockholm Meeting of 1925), vote, All these, synthetized and sifted, constitute the' uncodified, as distinct from conventional, rules of Inter~ national Law on the subject, which should govern aerial warfare of to~ day, International Law must not be confused with International Conventions, The guiding principle of aerial bombardment, supported by the majority of international jurists, as well as embodied in the Draft Convention of 1923, rests on the doctrine that whether a given locality defended or not, open or fortified, has no bearing upon the question of legitimacy of aerial bombardment, but that whether or not there is within the locality the so-called "military objective." What is then a military objective? At the Hague Conference of 1922-3, all the delegates agreed in principle upon the legality aerial bombardment on military objectives. Tt should be noted, however, that the British delegates took. the position of not attempting to ex. plain or define them. The American Graft, on the other hand, did not use the phrase "military objective," but undertook to designate the objects which might or might not be bombed: After prolonged and critical examination of the question by a subcom=_ mittee of the Conference, in which the Italian proposal was also taken into consideration, a compromise was barely arrived at, the result being Article 24, par. 2, of the Draft Convention, entimerating the kinds: of military' objectives subject bombardment. Although this speci. cation leaves room for $01 objections, yet T cannot but fear that, had acceptance of the British proposal prevailed, and the Draft Convention been ratified, the targets under the comprehensive name of "military objectives" would have been left to arbitrary judgment fan abuse of discretion on the part of the aviators.
Under the classifation of military objectives in the Hague Draft Convention, the Ath category is "lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes." This provision, if it is interpreted in the broadest sense which belligerents would probably apply to it, will extended to the enormous number of permissible objectives, such as railway stations, docks, ports, ote, used or to be used for military purposes, Railway stations were included in the original Italian enumeration, but the Ttalian delegation agreed to omit this item in compliance with the American suggestion, which was to the effect that a railway station bore no more relation to the use of a railway, line by military forces than 8 Cook's tourist agency or a rail~ way ticket office. Thus the omission of railway stations from the final Draft Convention seems to exclude them from the "lines of transportation" interpreting the phrase narrowly, T can see no reason why the stations, where troops entrain and et off, and which are extensively used for military depOts, should be excluded from the targets. Instances of bombing attack upon railway sta tions were too numerous in the late World War to cite the cases. Spaight, authoritative British jurist partiularly on aerial warfare, who stations, to limit it to favours the bombing upon railway
midnight operations when they are unoccupied by civilians (his "Air Power and War Right" Chap. X). This view may also be applied to government and business offices connected with the direction of war, as the object of bombing is the des. truction of the establishments and not of non-combatants themselves engaging within those buildings in routine works. Nevertheless it must depend "upon how far military exigencies would permit the delay of action to midnight, as well as how much the accuracy of night bombing against objectives could bbe advocated, The problem of harmonizing legitimate " bombing against military objectives with humanitarian consideration toward civilians is delicate as weill as important. The Hague Convention stipulates cases where aircraft must abstain from bombing even where military objectives exist and where bombardment is justified even exposing civilians to danger (Art. 24, par.3and4). Without entering into the details of the merits (or demerits) of these provisions, it should briehy noted that, in case there should be an absolute ban on the air bombing even against legal targets if the locality which contains them occupied by elvillan population, the natural consequence would be an inducement to remove such military objectives liable to bombardment into the centre of civie quarters in order to cause them to share in the immunity. The Hague Draft Convention 4s in short of preventing such abuses. Apart from such Intentional abuses, there are quite a number of military objectives actually situated within.a peaceful area. When they are of such important nature as to neces sitate their destruction on the part of an invader, military necessity would naturally not deter the bomber, irrespective of whether or not -the locality in question is "in. the im. mediate neighbourhood of the operations of land forces." "It is to be hoped that, when an international code on aerial warfare is compiled the future, provisions will be made for the removal of all military objectives from civil centres, subject, of course, to certain exceptions. However, until that time comes, an Indiseriminate bombardment, if any, of more or less degree on civic locality where objectives of highly important nature are interminglodly situated, must be considered as a necessary evil, so far as that indis~ crimination {snot of intentional. attempt but only as incidental to the direct injury on the target done by aviators, who should naturally take ample care to eliminate or minimize loss of life. If this is objected to from the point of view of humanity, the only other alternative would be the absolute prohibition of aerial warfare—a counsel of perfection it Is Jp be feared.
Non-combatants should be immune from direct attack meaning an attack solely or mainly, and intentionally, aiming at them." But this does not cover injuries sustained by an indirect and incidental blow. Hall ¢a3
"t_requires 10 be pointed {revarding non-combatants) that, the!
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.